Waikato District Health Board used Facebook to tell Hamilton City Council it had no excuses for withholding fluoride from the city’s water supply.

“Surely now there can be no excuses,” the board’s post said in reaction to a landmark High Court decision which favoured fluoride.

The reserved decision of Judge Rodney Harrison, released yesterday, rejected all grounds on which Christchurch-based lobby group New Health New Zealand argued against South Taranaki District Council’s moves to add fluoride to water in Waverley and Patea.

Hamilton City Council had been holding off reintroducing fluoride until the outcome of the South Taranaki case.

“Put fluoride back into the water Hamilton City Council please?”, the health board post said.

Health board spokeswoman Mary Anne Gill told the Times: “The people have spoken. The legal system has spoken. For the good of our children’s oral health, just put it back in and put it back in now.”

But, in spite of the High Court decision and a public referendum firmly in favour of fluoridation in October, Hamilton mayor Julie Hardaker says her council still has to vote on it first.

“We’ll be reviewing all the information to enable us to decide what the next steps for Hamilton will be.”

The next step is easy. The people have voted. The court case was decisive. Stick the fluoride back in.

Accepting, as I must, that there is respectable scientific and medical support for the Council’s position, I am driven to the conclusion that the significant advantages of fluoridation clearly outweigh the only acknowledged drawback, the increased incidence of fluorosis. I am satisfied that the power conferred on local authorities to fluoridate is a proportionate response to the scourge of dental decay, particularly in socially disadvantaged areas

The evidence relied on by the Council shows that the advantages of fluoridation significantly outweigh the mild fluorosis which is an accepted outcome of fluoridation.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 8th, 2014 at 6:52 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Let’s hope all the other councils who have removed fluoridation after being been bullied by the anti protestors will now reconsider their decisions. Some of the ‘experts’ cited by the likes of FANZ are also associated with opposition to childhood inoculation.

I suggest sending them all on a one-way trip to the moon to confirm whether or not Neil Armstrong walked there.

New Health have already stated they will appeal about 5 mins after the judgement so the they never even read why they lost. Plus the plaintiff is a bloody Australian imported just to cause shit.

Was interesting on NewsTalk when the head of the dental federation was asked who are these people and the response was they seemed to be the same anti health people including ones that are anti vaccines. Other good point he made was “so New Health is not okay with fluoride for children but happy for them to go under a general operation”

I agree science was never part of this. These wackos are just green freaks with an alternative agenda that could cause severe health impacts in our community.

Unfortunately, given the nature of humanity and the free-thinking society in which we live, there will always be Luddites who refuse to believe proven scientific facts and, instead, persist in clinging to their misguided – and in some instances – downright dangerous convictions.

Why, there are even people walking around, free and unhindered, who actually think that a Labour government would be good for this country! Can you believe it?

Prosper, you don’t have to drink the water supplied through the council water scheme. Many farmers all over the country collect their water from rainfall. That most rate payers in those areas want to have fluoride added to their water they fund to make up for the lack if that element in NZ soils is their right. Why are those same rate payers having to fund the legal costs?
Do you use uniodised salt? Most salt sold in NZ has iodine added also, but it is never used in processed food. People choose to use it because we know it’s the best way to get iodine, but you can also purchase salt without iodine. Much like iodine, fluoride is not compulsory medication.

Ross69, dentists in places like Whakatane can tell which of their clients come from unfluridated areas near by looking at their teeth. That’s a pretty good sign toothpaste on its own isn’t fully effective.

The most recent news is the chemical fluoride has been reclassified as a developmental neurotoxin joining the ranks of lead and arsenic.

EcoWatch report on the news published in the March 2014 issue of Lancet Neurology:

“A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.”

The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels of less than four milligrams per liter, which falls under the allowable level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

I find the argument against fluoridation based on freedom to choose highly disingenuous and rather specious.This is the only tactic left by the anti fluoride brigade since they’ve lost so convincly the science argument.
There are a host of activities and actions as we go about our daily lives that have mandatory requirements or restrictions placed on them. Obviously the addition of chloride to our water supplies comes to mind.There is the compulsory wearing of seat belts ,mandatory health and safety requirements ,restrictions on tabbaco sales and smoking ,mandatory provisions for Hospitals both public and private. Etc, etc.
I suspect some Libertarian idiocy behind some of this.
Not only a victory for science but plain and unadulterated commonsense .!.

Ugly Truth., neuro toxity.? A highly dubious claim indeed.An argument by the anti movement is the ludicrous claim that fluoride causes lower I Q functioning and tumours .etc
Utter rot.We can simply begin to compare sample groups from Auckand ( fluoridated ) and Tauranga ( no fluroudaion ). Where is the evidence that Aucklanders have lower I Qs ,higher incidence of Brain tumors motar nueron diseases etc.
There is isimply none .!
We are left only with pseudo scientific and quack claims like the alleged Nuero toxicity .!

Your argument is the flip side of mine. You are claiming that the weight of popular perception outweighs the interests of those who don’t happen to agree. That is generally regarded as acceptable in government in a democracy, but you are extending that rationale to mass medication. My response is that if you want something in your water, go right ahead and put it in. But just give me my water l’leau naturel si vous plait and if I want to add shit to it I’ll do it myself thanks and you can do the same. The difference is that you’ll add fluoride and I’ll add scotch.

Fundamentally, you are imposing on me in order to satisfy your views. As for the science angle, I recall there was a guy from a University in the US mid-west who once famously stated: “give me a $50,000 grant and I’ll prove anything”.

The irony for the pro-fluoride brigade is that it took the state interventionist ross69 to point out the irony of those normally railing against state intervention supporting mass medication

I’ve often wondered why that is whenever the fluoride debate gets batted around here. Whether it is because those who perceive themselves to be to the right inherently favour a sense of orthodoxy and are reluctant to disturb status quo or not accepting of those who query that orthodoxy. In this case, the orthodoxy is perceived as the science in favour of fluoride.

I’m in favour of personal choice on the subject of mass medication and don’t agree with the proposition that everyone who doesn’t want to drink mass-medicated water needs to pay 4 grand + or whatever to get a reliable central filtration system to get rid of all the crap that that Councils put in the water. I can choose not to eat bread that has been medicated to address fertility issues in a small proportion of the female population (which I resent) but water is more difficult.

“We can simply begin to compare sample groups from Auckand ( fluoridated ) and Tauranga ( no fluroudaion ). Where is the evidence that Aucklanders have low I Qs ,higher incidence of Brain tumors motar nueron diseases etc.”

Exactly right, there is nothing to show fluoridated groups have higher instances of health problems than non-fluoridated groups despite over 50 years and millions of sample groups. Nothing. No evidence of harm whatsoever.

“Not according to authors from the neurotoxicoligy division of the US EPA, who classify it as a chemical which has substantial evidence of developmental neurotocixity.”

Yet no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure. Talking out your ass ugly.

Also lets look at the rest of your list, it includes Ozone, Caffiene and diamorphine hydrochloride. Better start railing against coffee, air and painkillers too.

This trial was the Hastings-Napier Fluoridation Trial conducted between 1954 and 1964. The fraud was first discussed by the late Dr. John Colquhoun and his PhD thesis adviser Dr. Robert Mann in an article that appeared in The Ecologist in 1986. Further details were presented in Colquhoun’s thesis in 1987 (which is now available to a wider audience) and further refined by Colquhoun and Wilson in 1999.

4.1 The bare bones of the case.

The Hastings Napier trial was meant to have Hastings as the fluoridated community and Napier as the control. In other words it was going to be cross-sectional study – comparing tooth decay in two cities at the same point in time after one had been fluoridated and the other had not. Shortly into the experiment the control city was dropped, thus the study became a longitudinal one. In this case comparing the tooth decay in one city (Hastings) at the beginning and end of the trial.

For such a comparison to be valid, there must be no change in key parameters during the trial. However, there was a change in one of the key parameters in this trial and it was a major one – the method of diagnosing and treating tooth decay. This was more stringent at the end than it was at the beginning.

At the beginning of the trial school dental nurses were filling indentations (as if they were cavities) but the end they were only filling genuine “holes” in the enamel. Thus the drop in tooth decay attributed to fluoridation was part, or all, the result of making the diagnosis and treatment of tooth decay more stringent.

What makes the final report a fraud was that the authors did not mention the change in diagnosis when claiming the drop in tooth decay was due to fluoridation.

In other words, the whole of the fluoridation program in NZ has been built on the basis of a fraudulent study.

So still no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity or other health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure.

So still no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity or other health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure.

So you’re saying that no evidence of neurotoxity has been found in studies which look for a relationship between fluoride and bone fractures?
Are you just introducing the bone fracture issue to divert from the known neurotoxity of fluoride?
No comment about the fraudulent NZ study used to introduce fluoridation in this country, either?

No, I am talking about health problems as per my comment: “So still no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity or other health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure.”

Bone fractures being one such health problem.

Reading is not your strong suit. But the burden of proof is on you, not me. You need to show evidence of large scale neurotoxicity or other health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure in order to support your position. You can’t do it – you lose. You have no proof so you can be safety ignored until such time as you provide proof.

I believe that again the likes of Ugly Truth are being highly specious..Fraudulent Flurode studies in N Z ?. On what basis is that claim made based on which research .?
Anti Fluoride network supposition and Propoganda.?
Back to a core issue anti Flurode brigade.
I’ll effects are alleged like neuro toxicity.Another is the alleged incidence of a rise in bone camcer – Osteosarcoma with the use of fluoride in municipal water supplies.
Where exactly is the local evidence for this in say compared Taurnga ( none ) to Auckland ( with ). ?

No, I am talking about health problems as per my comment: “So still no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity or other health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure.”

Well, there won’t be any evidence of neurotoxicity if no studies have been done which test for it, would there?

Reading is not your strong suit.

I can read just fine, asshole.

But the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Your statement that no evidence of large scale neurotoxity exists is only meaningful if studies have been done which look for it. You have not provided any evidence that such studies exist, instead you diverted to the side issue of bone damage due to fluoride.

Still no response to the fraudulent NZ study of my 10:24 post, Contrarian?

While there is even one person who does not want The HCC to add flouride to drinking water delivered to his house (and, of course, other ways people who want extra flouride to get it) it should not be done.

MT Tinman, it is a win for science and it is there.
It’s an unmitigated defeat for unreason and pseudo science..
You’d naturally be happy if the PC scum took chlorine our of municipal water and make e.g Medical qualifications and certification non compulsory.?
Get a life.!

Why mass medicate because some mothers are too lazy to feed their children properly or supervise their personal hygiene??

If the fluoride that is added to some water supplies happened to be naturally occurring fluoride, maybe people wouldn’t mind so much. The fluoride used is a by product of aluminum smelting and so deadly poisonous that it can’t be dumped conventionally. It contains heavy metals and therefore toxic to humans. We don’t even use fluoride toothpaste in our house. Both of us, aged 73 and 65 respectively still have our own teeth, so the argument that it is necessary for dental health is dodgy to say the least.

M T Tinman, yes chlorine is added to water to make it safe to drink much like fluoride is added for the safety and health of our teeth .
Mass medication.? Are you suggesting fluoride is a kind of sedative.?
Ugly Truth if you continue to make outlandish claims about neuro toxicity etc then it would be only eminently sensible and fair to put the onus on you to back up your claims with
some basic evidence and facts.

THere are plenty of dentists who oppose adding fluoride to water. When you have experts opposed to fluoridation, it might pay to listen to what they have to say rather than arrogantly dismiss their views. I note that when Hamilton councillors voted to oppose water fluoridation, some councillors said they didn’t like the arrogance of the pro-lobby.

Ugly Truth if you continue to make outlandish claims about neuro toxicity etc then it would be only eminently sensible and fair to put the onus on you to back up your claims with some basic evidence and facts.

Some basic history from the Victorian Hansard (Australia):

This scheme was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.”Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individuals power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain, and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him.”Both the Germans and the Russians added fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile.”

Mullenix et al., observed an accumulation of fluoride in the important regions of the brain, especially in the hippocampus (mean 0.993 ppm F at 125 ppm water fluoride during weanling), which was found to increase as the fluoride levels in the drinking water increased (4).

…

Fluoride is toxic to the brain and chronic fluoride intoxication causes abnormalities in the brain cell architecture. There are many reports of histological abnormalities in the brain tissue of animals which were exposed to high levels of fluoride directly or during the foetal and weanling stages via the mother

…

With regards to the effect of fluoride on the metabolism in the brain, studies have shown that fluoride (as NaF) impairs the activities of the enzymes which are concerned with the metabolism of lipids, proteins and nucleic acids, and transmission of the nerve impulse

The most recent news is the chemical fluoride has been reclassified as a developmental neurotoxin joining the ranks of lead and arsenic.

EcoWatch report on the news published in the March 2014 issue of Lancet Neurology:

“A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.”

The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels of less than four milligrams per liter, which falls under the allowable level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

This is about freedom. You should have the choice whether or not to accept medicine. This is not about science.

You don’t want 1 part in a million of fluoride? OK, well if that’s important to you, its easy to spring a few hundred bucks on a water tank and connect it to the down spout of your gutter.
Your kids will get far more fluoride from the toothpaste they use.

But over on the other side of town, the kids who rarely brush their teeth will suffer caries. That’s the facts. Perhaps you don’t care about them.